More Science, Less Pop

Pages

Sunday, January 8, 2012

I am tired of reading popular science articles that misinterpret results and misinform the public. A basic understanding of statistics, skepticism, and reading primary sources should requirements for people who inform the general public about new scientific results, but they are not. Pop science journalism is mostly pop, a bit journalism, and very little science. I've seen articles which misquote articles which misquote articles which totally misunderstood the original results. I've seen university press offices and researchers alike spin their results as dramatically as possible in search of recognition they don't deserve for things they didn't prove. Rather than fume in the comment sections of these articles, I'm going to see if I can do better. I'm hardly a journalist, something of a scientist, and still retain the ability to do the first thing any grad student is taught to do: I can pick apart a scientific article in my field like a school of piranhas skeletonizing a cow. If no one reads this, it will be an outlet. If only folks who already think critically about science reporting read this, then I'll have some folks for empathy. And maybe I'll get lucky, and someone will read this blog and think twice about what they read, who they believe, and how they decide they know what they know. Wish me luck.

Subscribe To

Because Science Reporting Doesn't Have to Suck

This blog is my personal experiment in capturing more of the subtlety of scientific results while still presenting them in an entertaining fashion. I'm sick of reading bad pop science articles. Science articles intended for laypersons ought to be engaging without pandering. They shouldn't be sensationalist. They absolutely shouldn't be inaccurate. Science is cool enough--no one needs to pretend it does more than it says it does. Also, no self-respecting author ought to write anything on a primary source without reading that source.